Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-msg-20: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-msg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the updates in -20. I think we've only the following points left. Note that all of those are questions to the WG chairs and not to Jim. (2) 3.1, alg: so you're disallowing a setup where the kid alone identifies the key and algorithm to the recipient? That is used in some IETF protocols (OSPF iirc) so rhat's a pity, and will in those (maybe less common) cases consume a few bytes that could otherwise be saved. I think, but am not sure, that the WG already discussed this, but if not, maybe worth a thought? (Or even a 2nd thought:-) And appendix A.1 is really puzzling - as it provides instructions for how to not follow a MUST in the body of the document. I think we left the mail thread on this with you saying "Best to ask the chairs if they agree that this is WG consensus," as you're an admitteddly strong partisan on this topic. So, COSE chairs - what's your take? (If you say this is ok with the WG, I'll clear.) (6) section 10: why MUST the kty values be present always? That seems unnecessary in some contexts and I don't get a security reason why it's needed e.g. if there's an alg id somewhere - can you explain? I can see folks omitting this leading to interop problems for not useful reasons. (Same comment applies in other cases where kty is a MUST, e.g. 12.1.2, 12.2.1.) I think this is the similar to discuss point (2) above. So again, COSE chairs, can you confirm that this design does reflect WG consensus and isn't just a thorough and good editor getting his way? (If you say this is ok with the WG, I'll clear.) _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
